Posted
by
Zonkon Thursday December 13, 2007 @04:40PM
from the that's-a-lot dept.

The newest NPD numbers pass on a heartening statistic about the adoption of games: more than half of the US population plays videogames via some method. "Most people said that per week, they're either playing just as many or less hours than they did last year. Thirty percent said that they play more than a year ago, while another 30 percent said they play less and 40 percent say that they play the same amount of hours. Males aged 18-34 continue to be the heaviest gamers and are more attracted to hardcore games as opposed to casual games."

OK, so you are a self-described "hardcore" gamer...well, I have some sad news for you bucko. As soon as you say you refuse to play a game because either A. it is on a console or B. it is on a game system made by a specific company, you are basically revealing to the world that you are a moron. A complete and total moron.

What kind of gamer would want to LIMIT themselves by refusing to play games on certain platforms/systems? If you truly are a hardcore gamer, you would be playing as many different games as possible on as many different systems as possible...otherwise, you are what some people like to call "fake".

Who gives a crap if it's played with a keyboard/mouse or a controller? Who cares what company manufactured the system it plays on? If it's a video game, and it's fun, what more could you possibly want?

I am by no means a hardcore gamer, nor did I claim to be. I don't have the time for that. But the article, and I, both refer to hardcore GAMES, as opposed to casual games. You failure to comprehend invalidates your first two paragraphs.

Ok, The only thing I fully understand with a brief look is that males my age (31) would rather play a hardcore game. I can agree with that. Currently I'm playing Crysis. I'd say it's pretty hardcore. After this, it'll either be call of duty 4 or Bioshock. No tetris for me!

Oh, and if I can't play it with a mouse/keyboard at 1600*1200 then it's not worth playing. Sorry Xboxers and PS3 kiddies. No sitting on the living room floor playing with a controller for me. 8 buttons ain't enough. I need all 104. And I

Let me clarify.1. I play games that I would consider hard core. Crysis, as opposed to Tetris.2. I don't play enough to think of myself hardcore. 4 hours as WEEK maybe. A 6 hour LAN party once a month.3. Being that I don't play that much, I am very discerning about WHAT I play, and HOW I play. Keyboard/mouse are the controllers for me. I want a high resolution. Console graphics at low res have completely caught up, but currently I don't know of any TV or console that'll do 1600x1200. I'll be going to 1

Regardless, the way that you talk about it makes you sound like an elitist ass. And btw, any TV that can output a 1080P signal is already putting out a higher resolution than 1600X1200....not to mention 1600X1200 isn't all that high for modern PC games...

As far as headshotting with a controller, it just takes some getting used to...if anything, it just means you are more skilled if you are able to. Being able to be just as proficient in an FPS using a mouse as you are using a controller is a great skill to have btw. You never know when a great shooter is going to be a console exclusive...Goldeneye, perhaps?

BTW, both the 360 AND the PS3 can output a 1080p signal. Just thought you would like to know.

Being able to modify PC games, that I will definately agree with you on...Oblivion is the perfect example of that, and Team Fortress 2/Portal will both be fantastic examples of it as well, once the community spends some more time with them.

Still, don't entirely write off consoles....you are really limiting yourself from playing some fantastic games.

Keep in mind even though consoles says they do 1080i/p, doesn't mean it actually does. Call of Duty 4, etc, only display like 1080x600 or something like that, even though it says 1080i on the box. Only a rare few games actually display the full 1920x1080 or whatever the resolution is.

you're misunderstanding his point, or you don't want to quit because he sounds "elitist" to you. but he's merely trying to say that, given the limited time he has to play video games (or wants to), that he chooses to use it on computers because that's what's easiest and that's what he enjoys most. he's not staying away from consoles purposely...

The biggest problem with playing games at 1600x1200 or above is the hardware costs to get a good framerate out of said games. I could probabaly buy all three consoles for the cost of the upgrades to play such games on my PC. Playing at 720p/1080p is good enough for me.

Ont he mod side, that is indeed what kept me playing pc games for so long. I was thrilled when sony allowed mods on the ps3, and UT3 made use of them. Its as simple as downloading the mod to a usb stick and importing it on your ps3. Re

Tetris is considered a casual game, which does not mean that it can't be taken to the hardcore levels (want proof? look up Tetris on youtube). What makes Tetris a casual game is that it's far more accessible than games labeled "hardcore". Truthfully, I don't really like the concept of Hardcore/Casual but as long as it's around, I think it's important to recognize that a casual game can appeal to a hardcore player and there's no shame in that. Still, calling Tetris a hardcore game is a bit of a stretch.

As soon as you say you refuse to play a game because either A. it is on a console or B. it is on a game system made by a specific company, you are basically revealing to the world that you are a moron. A complete and total moron.

What is the essential difference between a PC and a "console"? Is it largely that the maker of a "console" refuses to provide "methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a [...] work in that [console] from a modified version of its Corresponding Source" to end users? If so, would that make Mr. Stallman a moron because GPLv3 games don't run on consoles by definition?

If you truly are a hardcore gamer, you would be playing as many different games as possible on as many different systems as possible...otherwise, you are what some people like to call "fake".

Given the $1,350 price tag to own all three consoles with even one con

What is the essential difference between a PC and a "console"? Is it largely that the maker of a "console" refuses to provide "methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a [...] work in that [console] from a modified version of its Corresponding Source" to end users? If so, would that make Mr. Stallman a moron because GPLv3 games don't run on consoles by definition?

The essential difference is a PC is a PC and a console is something su

The essential difference is a PC is a PC and a console is something such as an Xbox, a Playstation, a Dreamcast...

Then what's a PC? Something that has a Microsoft operating system installed on it? Does that make a Mac that doesn't have Boot Camp and XP installed not a PC? Does that make my PDA a PC because it runs Windows Mobile?

come on, stop nitpicking.

I wanted to get Layne's Law [c2.com] issues out of the way first because precise definitions make arguments more robust. If I don't know what definition of PC you're using, I find it difficult to participate meaningfully.

If none of your friends have PC's

The friends I'm talking about don't own PCs; their parents do.

and you enjoy playing multiplayer splitscreen, then obviously you should invest in consoles that have good multiplayer games

Independent in what way? How do I make my own multiplayer game for Wii?

by Independent, I thought you were refering to single player games. There is of course the XNA for the 360, and with the Wii there is WiiWare, even though there hasn't been anything released for it yet...I think everything planned for it is due starting early-to-mid 2008...check out the wikipedia article for more info on that.

Why is this the case? Is it that home theater PC setups are also "very few and far between"?

Damn tepples. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. I will, however, comment on you Guitar Hero statement. Here's how I see it.

I feel it's more fun to play Guitar Hero on the Guitar controller. I probably wouldn't play the game if it wasn't for the controller.

That being said, I take no issue to a person saying "I prefer to play FPS with a mouse and keyboard". That is equatable to me saying that I prefer to play Guitar hero with the guitar. What I do take issue with is the "playing a

I remember a few OLD PC games like this when I was younger. Player A would use WASD, player B would use the keypad. I haven't seen anything like that in quite a while. And I never new that HD was 1920*1080... I always figured they refered to it like computer monitors with the width being primary. I thought it was 1080x800 or something. Time for me to move to QXGA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vector_Video_Standards2.svg [wikipedia.org]

refuse to buy a system because it is manufactured by a certain company as opposed to choosing the system that has the most games they are interested in (especially important if they are limited to one system), THEN they are fake.>

Actually I play on PC because of the type of games I play much better with a mouse. Precision aiming is dirt simple with a mouse. And selecting a group of 30 zealots on the screen in starcraft would be damn near impossible with anything else. Incidently I tried playing the P

But you yourself said if it couldn't be played with a keyboard/mouse combo, it isn't worth playing...that is entirely inaccurate. Many of the greatest games of all time (not just my opinion, I'm refering to topping lists, polls, general consensus and such) were console exclusives....Now, I can understand playing primariliy PC games because you play shooters and RTS, that's fine...that makes sense. But don't just pass off ALL games on consoles because they aren't shoehorned into those two genres or because

Thank you for that video. It was the feel good story of the year. A hot girl gamer? Now there's hope. Now if only I could get a copy of Prince of Persia with the awesome "You win, advance to level 2" message, I could lure her over to my place.

A console has a predefined set of hardware (sans hard storage - as in, you can get a 360 with or without a hard drive, but they all have the same guts), a PC doesn't. By "predefined," I don't mean that the hardware conforms to a set of standards, I mean that every GameBox out there has hardware that behaves in the exact same way. If a developer can get a GameBox's hardware to do backflips in order to render some crazy scene, they can publish that code in a game, and it will work on every GameBox. Additional

A console has a predefined set of hardware (sans hard storage - as in, you can get a 360 with or without a hard drive, but they all have the same guts), a PC doesn't.

You define a console as a fixed set of hardware. Thank you. So why do all consoles sold in the United States have lockout chips?

What John needs to realize is that a) his statements make no difference to anyone, and b) that if the GameBox actually did "win the war" and wiped all of the other consoles off the face of the planet, it would probably be a raw deal for everyone who plays console games because the lack of competition would result in a dearth of innovation.

How does this compare to the dearth of innovation caused by not allowing hobbyists to develop and deploy games on any platform other than Windows and Mac OS X?

I'm not quite sure how your questions here tie in to what all the posts above were about (thought we were talking more about fanboyism, stupid arguments, etc.) but maybe I didn't read closely enough. Regardless, it's an interesting topic, so I'll bite.By lockout chips, are you referring to the mechanisms that keep an average Joe can't develop and sell games for a console? Looking at your second question, I imagine so.

I don't see how having a fixed set of hardware has anything to do with having a lockout chi

By lockout chips, are you referring to the mechanisms that keep an average Joe can't develop and sell games for a console?

Yes, I am referring to these technical measures. I am also referring to the policies of all members of the console cartel to 1. reject any title for any reason and 2. categorically reject all proposals from publishers smaller than a given market cap.

I'm pretty sure that console manufacturers put in these mechanisms for two reasons. A) It gives them control over what gets published on the system in terms of quality and content (so our average Joe can't make a 360 game that says "Microsoft and Xbox suck donkey balls" and distribute it). As far as I know, they don't exercise this control often, but if they wanted to they could.

Does DVD Format/Logo Licensing Corporation reserve this right too? I haven't read any indication that they do.

B) Those mechanisms are there so the integrity of the console can be guaranteed. Once you mod a 360, it's technically not a 360 anymore

But if the lockout mechanism did not exist, people wouldn't have a need to mod the console. Specifically, DVD-Video players don't need to be modded t

I think you're missing the point, tepples. The original post had nothing to do with lockout. Everyone can probably agree lockout deprives innovation. That's not a counter to his point, though, that lack of competition deprives innovation. To sum up the conversation so far:

NLAWALKER- "Being a fanboy is bad because, should a fanboy get his wish, we'd see a lapse in competition that would lead to a lack in innovation."

TEPPLES- "Yeah, but consoles have lockout chips that deprive the world of innovatio

Agreed (::hands shaken::)! Although the conversation has turned towards lockout mechanisms and such, I don't see any reason not to continue it.In response to tepples' post above, the best move to market a "consolish" game that you've only got a Windows prototype for is to get it out on the Internet and get people talking about it. I'm not exactly sure what Jenova Chen did to get Sony Computer Entertainment's attention with fl0w (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatgamecompany); maybe someone there just happene

No. The essential difference is that consoles are fixed hardware while PCs can have many different hardware configurations. PCs tend to be ahead of the curve graphics-wise since they can always be updated while consoles have a 5 year cycle (approximately). Other than that, they are all just computers.

Because Microsoft have a monopoly on creating/designing XBoxes, and Sony have a monopoly on creating/designing Playstations etc so they *can* put hardware in to stop the hobbyists developing for the platform.

Nobody has a monopoly on any part of a PC gaming setup, except arguably MS for the operating system, and every PC is expected to do more than play games - allowing hobbiest development is expected from a PC.

Also PC components cost their true cost - they are not subsidised, so nobody loses money if

Because Microsoft have a monopoly on creating/designing XBoxes, and Sony have a monopoly on creating/designing Playstations etc so they *can* put hardware in to stop the hobbyists developing for the platform.

Which hardware is fixed but not subsidy-locked? Or what hardware is designed for shared-screen multiplayer but is not fixed and not subsidy-locked?

If an amazing game was developed by a hobbiest for XBox/PS3 then MS/Sony won't get their licensing fees

Pretend I have developed a PC-based prototype of an amazing game that could be the next Smash Bros. All four players' characters are in a single room, and the action is viewed from a fixed or nearly fixed viewpoint shared by all players, just as in Bomberman. Such a game would appear to require TV output and multiple gamepads to be fully appreciated. So which p

Given the $1,350 price tag to own all three consoles with even one controller (Xbox: $450 incl. two years of Live Gold; PS3: $500; Wii: $400 from a scalper)

Getting a Wii isn't that hard if you have any level of patience. I haven't bought one myself yet, but I check up on them at the local Wal-mart fairly often. Indeed, most of the time they are out of stock, but if I'd had bought them every time I could have I could have purchase at least 10 of the little critters in the last couple months. My brother decided he wanted one, started checking the electronics department on the way home from work each day, and found one in under 2 weeks.

Nothing, considering that the store is on the way home and he's normally going to be shopping there anyways to pickup bread, milk, whatever. Unless you truly want to work in the roughly 3 minutes per day it takes to walk by the electronics department. We'll assume 2 weeks (10 working days), $15 an hour for him, and round the cost of the search out to about $7.50 tops.That's assuming you buy into the opportunity cost myth for personal use anyways. Time isn't like cell phone minutes - at the end of the day

the store is on the way home and he's normally going to be shopping there anyways to pickup bread, milk, whatever.

I had not considered this possibility, given that there is no store that sells both milk and video games between where I work and where I live, and we typically go grocery shopping only once a week if that.

To work back into real economic terms, it's supply and demand. The demand for one person's time generally drops to 0 beyond a given amount per day. Doesn't matter what the supply is - if the demand is zero, the value is also zero.

After a certain point, things begin to interfere with sleep time. Forgoing sleep results in failure of health, which results in loss of income from the time spent on unpaid leave to recover.

OK, so you are a self-described "hardcore" gamer...well, I have some sad news for you bucko. As soon as you say you refuse to play a game because either A. it is on a console or B. it is on a game system made by a specific company, you are basically revealing to the world that you are a moron. A complete and total moron.

Um, I strongly disagree with you. Why? I currently only support 3 game platforms: PC, PS2, and N64. I'm cheap. Although I'd like a Wii, I'm not going out to spend the money on another consol

I think you were missing the point that I was responding to in regards to the OP...he said certain games weren't worth playing because they were played with a controller instead of a keyboard and mouse. Not because he couldn't afford to, not because he didn't agree with them morally, he said they were literally worthless because they were console games that used controllers and not PC games that used a keyboard/mouse combo.If you don't want to buy a system or a game because you can't afford to or because y

Sorry, 31, wife, 2 kids, small house... No friends coming over to play video games. When we do it we go to one of our offices, drag some computers into the break room and play for about 6 hours. And we usually play about 6-12 people games. Can't imagine doing a 6 way split screen on ANY TV;)

Wife won't touch a computer game. It's the only thing from keeping her from being perfect. Kids are 3 and 5. We actually got a PS2 for christmas for them. Currently sharing the computer at home is turn based. The 5yo plays transformers for a while, then they switch. Part of the goal of the PS2 is so they can play at the same time.

No, friends and I go to one of our offices for said LAN parties. Stay up late, make lots of noise, alcohol, no bothering the kids.

"If you have friends over, how many keyboards and how many mice can you connect to your PC and let them use?"

You can usually hook up several keyboards, mice may vary. Of course you may only have one game on one screen so several people playing at the same time gets rough on said keyboards trying to out control the others......just don't expect to set many high scores:O

Of course you may only have one game on one screen so several people playing at the same time gets rough on said keyboards trying to out control the others

I have one PC, one 27" composite CRT monitor, and three players, and I connect three input devices through a USB hub. When these devices are gamepads, a game using DirectInput can tell which device a particular button press came from. But when these controllers are keyboards, Windows funnels all their events into one DirectInput device. Other people have reported better results using Linux-based operating systems, but as of 2007, the commercial game market for Linux lacks economies of scale compared to W

Oh, I know! Honestly, I can't put up with playing games on less than a 30" widescreen, with AT LEAST twelve speakers in a surround setup. My mouse has to have ten buttons and two scroll wheels or I can't maximize my playing potential. Actually, I even found 104 keys to be too restrictive, so I hacked together a new keyboard that fills in all the empty space with more buttons.

I mean, if a man can't have a decent setup like the one I just described, what's the point? I might as well go outside or something.

Are you sure that those games weren't being counted? Besides, I think that knowing the number of serious gamers is more important than the number of people who play solitaire. There's a lot more money to be made off of the latter group.

NPD's report, Expanding the Games Market, said that 63 percent of the US population plays videogames on console, PC, handhelds, mobile, iPods, kids systems or other devices. The survey included over 5,000 online participants.

I would like to point out that the data will be slightly skewed as this was an online survey and those with the ability to take an online survey have a wider exposure to video games already as they need a computer with browser. (i.e. I guarantee my grandmother who has never played a video game in her life and also doesn't have an internet connection or computer took this survey).

With that out of the way, is this really surprising anyways? With Nintendo making games appeal to a much broader audience than ever before, we literally have a wide selection of video games for every market. Whether it's the sims on PC, soduku on hand-held, bowling on the Wii, or educational and learning games for the kids, I think that the US has learned to embrace the entertainment value and tailor it to everything from learning to leisure.

The only real barrier to entry is getting used to a specific UI and there are a stubborn few that will refuse to learn something new, but there are plenty willing to learn as the market adapts to them, and thus I think that adaptation will only continue to grow too.

I also think it makes sense that the hours played is flattening off. While I formerly was bad at putting a game down to go to (work / class / social interactions), I slowly realized there was a time and place for video games and began to play responsibly (although WOW is still pretty friggin addictive). I think most (we'll say 'normal') people already have this internal regulation, recovering addicts like myself that threw off the "hours played" curve are slowly coming out of the darkness.

I won't say this is a good change as educational video games are not a substitute for good parenting, only a supplement, and I see some people forget this. Additionally (and I still refuse to say this in certain terms) things like video games could be a cause of ADD and other attention disorders.

I will say that it is good to kick back and relax as long as it doesn't interfere with your life and some games can be good teaching tools if used properly.

...as far as I know, there's roughly a 50/50 split between males & females, in terms of U.S. population. Now I'm pretty sure that this doesn't mean that the entire male population plays video games, though by all accounts, males DO make up the majority. Even so, if an estimated 2/3 of video game players are males, that leaves an AMAZING amount of girl gamers!I don't believe, though, that most people in that study were gamers in the typical sense... those who play console or PC games. I believe a large

"The survey included over 5,000 online participants."...Okay... doesn't that mean that certain huge demographics have been completely ignored? Like, the people out there who don't have internet access? Or don't have access to a computer at all?